|
Leonardi Spengelii opus praeclarum, quod Συναγωγὴ τεχνῶν inscribitur, ut redintegrarem, pro viribus promoverem, in eam, quae hodie probatur, formam redigerem, maxime eo commotus sum quod ante hos plus centum annos, cum prodiit, ne Walzii quidem editio rhetorum Graecorum praesto erat, hodie inter disciplinae rhetoricae augures tantopere contempta, ne quid dicam de tot rhetorum, oratorum, philosophorum editionibus postea insecutis, de Philodemo, quem S. Sudhaus restituit, de strenuis virorum doctorum laboribus in rhetorica antiqua exploranda consumptis.
Opusculum autem meum est omne divisum in partes tres, quarum in secunda Spengelii copias expressi, easdem, quatenus id facere potui, auxi, emendavi, adnotavi. Primam partem ac tertiam de meo addidi, in prima, quae artis initiorum historiae fabulosae et verae testimonia colligit, id quoque egi, ut demonstrarem, quanta cum auctoritate opinio sive de dis sive de hominibus antiquitus concepta per saecula duraret.
In tertia parte selecta quaedam exhibui, quae technographorum inventa fuisse certis verbis indicatur, additis paucis, quae ad artem aliquam sophisticam satis probabiliter revocari poterant, ex quibus, horum scriptorum quäle fuerit ingenium, cognoscitur. Namque ut de Aristotelis rhetorica loquar — ne quid dicam de Anaximene — sicut non est dubium, quin permulta insint praecepta, quae ille philosophus non primus pronuntiavit, ita nostri non est operis omnia ea expiscari, quod qui facere volet, commentario perpetuo in auctoris verba inquiret.
Igitur ex Aristotele proferre satis habui, quae etsi in eius rhetorica insunt, tamen a vero auctoris animo aliena videbantur, sed aliis auctoribus aliquo cum iure tribui poterant. Omnino autem ex Aristotele itemque ex Anaximene addere in adnotationibus studui, si quid cum manifesta antiquiorum doctrina congruere videbatur. Ne quis tarnen harum rerum studiosus ipsos illos auctores adire, legere, examinare praetermittat! **
Iterum autem iterumque mecum reputavi de huius operis consilio, quid recipiendum esset, quaerens, quidve deserendum. Imprimis dubitatio exstitit, essentne talia fragmentis adnumeranda, qualia sunt Polycratis in Socratem invectivae relicta frusta, quam meram fuisse declamationem H. Sauppe putavit, vir doctrina et iudicio insignis. Quod si ita esset, ne Lysiae quidem contra Polycratem libellus abiciendus erat, Xenophontis ἀπολογίαν Σωκράτους etiam nunc legimus. Mihi igitur in ista re Cicero quasi dux exstitit, cum dicit (Or. 65): „sophistarum . . . magis distinguenda similitudo videtur, qui omnes eosdem volunt flores, quos adhibet orator in causis, persequi, sed hoc differunt, quod, cum sit iis propositum non perturbare animos, sed placare potius, nec tarn persuadere quam delectare, et apertius id faciunt quam nos et crebrius.“ Neque enim Polycratem delectationis gratia contra Socratem scripsisse existimo aut perturbare animos noluisse, sed tamquam actorem prodiisse flagrante partium certamine, itaque medium quoddam tenemus scribendi genus, inter habitas orationes et ludos artis positum, quod nostro nomine fortasse „Streitschriften“ sive „Flugschriften“ appellabimus. Quod genus commemoravi quidem, ubi res idonea videbatur, sed si quis eiusmodi reliquias accuratius cognoscere volet, eum ad alios auctores delegavi.
Quicumque vero reliquiarum syllogen a nobis propositam perlustrabit, imprimis meminerit oportebit, illa aetate, qua sophistarum qui vocantur acies prodibat, nondum singularum disciplinarum materiam atque rationem ita fuisse secretam et circumscriptam, ut inter suos fines doctus quisque securus habitaret. Accedit, quod, cum prima scientiarum fundamenta iacerentur, earum rerum, quae indagari et sciri poterant, ambitus non ita late patebat. Haud igitur mirum, si quis de unaquaque materia dicere se posse tum temporis profitebatur. Nec vero a proba ratione abhorret, quod hi homines, dum λόγου cognitioni atque arti operam dant, etiam grammaticae campum adierunt, neque enim philologi tum exstiterunt. Ac Prodici quidem divisiones synonymorum quis ab elocutionis elegantiis separabit? Itaque Aristoteles si περὶ λέξεως sophistas non multum tradidisse testatur, eam artis partem intellegere videtur, quae pertinet ad perihodorum structuram, ornatum, copulationem, quibus plena efficitur oratio, quam ipse partem respicit uni virtuti, perspicuitati scilicet; omnia subiciens. Ego tarnen eos quoque, qui nostra aetate de stilo latino libros conscripserunt, incohare video a substantivis, adiectivis, verbis, adverbiis, pronominibus, praepositionibus, inde progredi ad enuntiatorum conformationem, tertio demum loco tractare orationis progressum. Itaque ne sophistarum quidem studia. parum intellegemus, siquidem τὰ τοῦ λόγου στοιχεῖα tractaverunt. Rhetoricae ethica quoque praecepta adiungunt, nam pueros, ut boni cives •essent, educandos esse putabant. Philosophiam quidem Plato constituit atque a sophistarum vanitate separat, Isocrates suam disciplinam praecipue oratoriam πολιτικὴν φιλοσοφίαν appellat, quod si quis hodie facturus esset, inter philosophos risum moveret. Sed haec cum ita se habeant, id quoque patet, finibus distinctis quid in fragmentorum numerum recipiendum, quid excludendum esset, adumbrare interdum difficile nobis esse Visum. Rhetoricen principatum tenere iudicavimus, veniam petimus, si pauca quaedam addidimus, quae hodie sane minime rhetorices propria videbuntur. Sed pro certis, quae plane incerta erant, vendere noluimus.
Idem dicendum est de auctoribus nominandis. Nam ut exemplo utar, Leonem Byzantium oratorem, Philippi Macedonis adversarium, qui anno 337 a. C. vitam suspendio finivit, vix ideo sophistam credo esse appellatum, quia admodum dicax videbatur (Bux, Realenc. 12, 2008), sed ars, quae sine dubio rhetorica fuit, in Suda Leoni Alabandensi (Jacoby, FGrHist. n. 278) tribuitur, qui idem, rhetor audit ibidem et περὶ στάσεων scripsisse fertur neque ad nos pertinet. Fuit inter Leonum opera confusio, fuit praeter sophistam atque rhetorem etiam historiae auctor: ne is quidem ad nos pertinet.
Isocratis, quae ferebatur, artem fuisse non genuinam omnes hodie consentire videntur, fragmenta autem nobis servata diversam indolem habent, plura sunt quae doctrinae Isocrateae quasi faciem puram ostendunt, sunt tarnen, de quorum natura dubitari possit. Sed probabile est artem scriptam ab Isocrate non esse editam, ea vero, quae scholis cotidianis docuerat, a discipulis diligenter esse excepta atque, quo pretio esse videbantur, si minus publice vivo magistro, certe clam esse propagata, posthac in lucem prolata. Qua de licentia audimus Quintilianum in prohoemio libri primi (7) querentem, „quod duo iam sub nomine meo libri ferebantur artis rhetoricae neque editi a me neque in hoc comparati. Namque alterum sermonem per biduum habitum pueri, quibus id praestabatur, exceperant, alterum pluribus sane diebus, quantum notando consequi potuerant, interceptum boni iuvenes; sed nimium amantes mei temerario editionis honore vulgaverant“. Quid igitur? Num, quod Quintiliano acciderat, id Isoerati, magistro celeberrimo, accidere non potuisse credamus? Nec mirum hoc industriae genus cautis praeceptoribus non admodum placuisse. ἀπόρρητα erant, quae docebant, exstat autem Diogenis Laertii (IV 1, 2) de Speusippo testimonium: πρῶτος (sic) παρὰ Ἰσοκράτους τὰ καλούμενα ἀπόρρητα ἐξήνεγκεν, quae verba cur temere enuntiata putem non video. Quo factum est, ut etiam Aristoteles in artium conlectione Isocratea praecepta commemorare posset. Talem artem invito Isocrate vulgatam posteriores Isocrateam vocare potuerunt, etiam si manibus Isocratis eam scriptam non fuisse bene sciebant; hinc diversa de fide eius iudicia.
Fragmentis addidi locos ex ipsis Isocratis orationibus, quam bene poteram, congestos, ex quibus, quid de arte rhetorica auctor senserit, cognoscitur. Indices praemisi, qui paene plenam nos tenere artem doeent, omisi tarnen pleraque, quae ad meram terminologiam pertinent atque Pantatzis et Wersdörferi, licet is vitae praecepta et rhetorica interdum minus commode miscuerit, curis parata exstant, quae, si quando lexicon technologiae Graecorum rhetoricae novum ac plenum prodibit, ibi locum habebunt.
Anonymi περὶ μεγαλοπρεπείας fragmenta e papyro quadam ab Anglis edita si in appendice expressi, non sum nescius de huius auctoris aetate dubitari, quem Coracem ipsum fuisse quidam opinati sunt, alii Theodectae sectatorem exstitisse declaraverunt, neque inter Theodecten et anonymum vincula fuisse negare licet post ea, quae Augustus Mayer in operis, quod Theophrasti περὶ λέξεως libri fragmenta inscribitur, prolegomenis p. XLV sq. luculenter exposuit, sed si duo idem dicunt, uter prior fuerit, per se non liquet. Movit me Dorieus orationis color tarn simplex atque antiquus, ut anonymum nostrum cum altero anonymo, δίσσοι λόγοι auctore, comparare non dubitem. Meo quidem iudicio Theodecte etiam antiquior fuisse potest.
Magno autem studiis meis adiumento fuit, quod Dielsii opus celeberrimum „Vorsokratiker“ quod dieitur nee minus celebris historicorum Graecorum fragmentorum collectio, quam Felix Jacoby instituit, interim lucem viderant, quae opera, ubi eidem auctori serviunt, meos conatus ita supplent, ut, si quid extra rhetoricam sit, pleraque his relinquere lectoremque ad hos remittere possim. Nec tacenda Sauppii, Blassii, aliorum studia in fragmentis oratorum Atticorum conquirendis et explicandis posita; quae ipsa quoque onere alioquin subeundo passim me exonerarunt, quos auctores hic atque illic, ne compilarem, adpellare satius duxi.
Erunt fortasse, qui vituperent, quod in sophistarum ordine temporum non satis respexerim rationem. Quorum censurae non repugno, aliquid tarnen, ut in rebus saepenumero vix accurate computandis, audendum fuit.
In textu fragmentorum constituendo eas copias adhibui, quas alii paraverant, editiones adii bodie volgatas, plerumque quidem Teubnerianas, Weidmannianas, sed aliorum quoque ut Gerneti in Antipbonte, Burneti in Platone, ita tamen, ut facere decebit virum per tot annos in litteris Graecis Latinisque versatum multaque ipsum expertum. Aliquando plures editiones in uno auctore inspicere utile visum est, in apparatu critico, ubi addendus erat, diversas codicum manu scriptorum lectiones simplieiter notavi, sicut Buecheler fecit in Petronii editione minore. Itaque si quis emendationum patres cognoscere volet, ipsas editiones adire debebit. Ceterum de meo nonnulla mutavi.
Codices manu scriptos ubicumque attulimus, iis litteris signavimus, quibus in editionibus criticis notari solent, sed nomina codicum non addidimus, quoniam imperitos ipsa per se nil docent. Codicum enim singulorum quae sit auctoritas, e nominibus solis minime cognoscitur, quam ad recte aestimandam auctorum variorum editiones earumque praefationes inspicere oportebit.
In iis adnotationibus, quae fragmentis subiectae sunt, selecta quaedam laudavi, quae nostra aetate edita verborum sensui inluminando utilia viderentur atque, quo tenderet auctor, demonstrare possent. Prolixam rem me egisse non nescio. Neque enim facile dicas, quibus finibus tale Studium terminandum sit: invenientur, qui, ut exemplo utar, ea, quae de Isocratis cum Platone, Aristotele, Alcidamante, aliis perpetua altercatione explorata, divinata; coniectata hodie exstant, in hoc libro proposita fore sperent, quod tarnen potius officium est earum relationum, quibus litterarum nostrarum per annos progressus tractatur. Antiquorum auctorum locos similes addere in tali spicilegio, quäle hoc nostrum est, maioris putamus esse pretii, denique si quid ipse ad verba interpretanda dicere posse mihi videbar, ubique adieci.
In rhetoribus Walzium laudavi aut Spengelii editionem, excepto plerumque primo volumine, quod Hammer iterum edidit, Spengelium autem, cuius paginae in margine interiore apud Rabeum indicatae sunt, etiam in Hermogene nominavi, etsi Rabei textum hic illic praetuli. Nollem sane B VII 30 cum Rabeo edidissem ἵνα μὴ πάντων λέγω pro eo quod Spengel exhibet ἵνα μὴ λέγω πάντων, quod praestat propter clausulae numeros (_v_ _v). Breviter indicavi: A. S. = Τεχνῶν Συναγωγή sive Artium Scriptores. Composuit L. Spengel. Stuttgartiae 1828. Barczat = W. Barczat, De figurarum disciplina atque auctoribus, Diss. Gott. 1904. Blass = Fr. Blass, Die attische Beredsamkeit, 2. Aufl., Leipzig 1898. Brandstätter = C. Brandstätter, De notionum πολιτικός et σοφιστής usu rhetorico, Stud. Lips. XV (1893). Fraustadt — G. Fraustadt, Encomiorum in litteris Graecis usque ad Romanam aetatem historia, Diss. Lipsiae 1909. Friedel = 0. Friedel, De philosophorum ac sophistarum, qui fuerunt ante Platonem, studiis Homericis. I. De sophistis, Diss. Regim. 1873. Friedländer = U. Friedländer, De Zoilo aliisque Homeri obtrectatoribus, Diss. Regim. 1895. Gomperz = H. Gomperz, Sophistik und Rhetorik, Leipzig 1912. H. additum significat Rhetorum Graecorum volumen primum ex recognitione Leonardi Spengel iteratum a Carolo Hammer, Lipsiae 1894. Hamberger = P. Hamberger, Die rednerische Disposition in der alten τέχνη ῥητορική, Rhet. Studien II., Paderborn 1914. Herm. = Hermes. Zeitschrift für kl. Philologie. Hiddemann = C. Hiddemann, De Antiphontis, Andocidis, Lysiae, Isocratis, Isaei oratorum iudicialium prooemiis, Diss. Monast. 1913. Hofrichter = W. Hofrichter, Studien zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Deklamation, Diss. Breslau 1935. Jaeneke = Gualtherus Jaeneke, De statuum doctrina ab Hermogene tradita, Diss. Lipsiae 1904. Jensen = Chr. Jensen, Herakleides vom Pontos bei Philodem und Horaz, S. B. d. preuß. Ak. d. Wiss. phil.-hist. Kl. 1936, XXIII. Kowalski = G. Kowalski, De arte rhetorica I., Lemberg 1937. Lehnert = G. Lehnert, De scholiis ad Homerum rhetoricis. Diss. Lipsiae 1896. Marx = F. Marx. Aristoteles’ Rhetorik, Ber. d. k. sächs. Ges. d. Wiss. phil.-hist. Kl. LII (Leipzig 1909), 241 sq. M. Rh. = Rheinisches Museum. Mueller = Ad. Mueller, De Antisthenis Cynici vita et scriptis, Diss. Marpurgi Chatt. 1860. Navarre = Octave Navarre, Essai sur la rhetorique grecque avant Aristote, Paris 1900. Nestle = W. Nestle, Vom Mythos zum Logos, Stuttgart 1940. Peters = CI. Peters, De rationibus inter artem rhetoricam quarti et primi saeculi intercedentibus, Diss. Kilon. 1907. Pflugmacher = E. Pflugmacher, Locorum communium specimen, Diss. Gryph. 1909. Plöbst = W. Plöbst, Die Auxesis (Amplificatio), Diss. München 1911. Pohlenz == M. Pohlenz, Die Anfänge der griechischen Poetik (Nachr. d. k. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Göttingen, phil.-hist. Kl. 1920). P. S.-R. = Prolegomenon Sylloge, ed. H. Rabe, Lipsiae 1935 Scheel = Ae. Scheel, De Gorgianae disciplinae vestigiis, Diss.Rostoch. 1890. Schwartz = E. Schwartz, Commentatio de Thrasymacho Chalcedonio, Index scholarum Rostoch. 1892. Sheehan (Sh.) = M. Sheehan, De fide artis rhetoricae Isocrati tributae, Diss. Bonnae 1901. Solmsen = Fr. Solmsen, Die Entwicklung der aristotelischen Logik und Rhetorik, Berlin 1929. Spengel, v. A. S. Süss = W. Süss, Ethos, Leipzig 1910. W = Walzii Rhetorum Graecorum editio. (1832-36) Wendland = P. Wendland, Anaximenes von Lampsakos, Berlin 1905. Wersdörfer = H. Wersdörfer, Die φιλοσοφία des Isokrates im Spiegel ihrer Terminologie, Leipzig 1940. . . .
Alia per se intelleguntur aut plenis titulis adferuntur. { . . . } cancelli significant e textu aliquid esse eiciendum, [. . .] supplementum spatii vacui in Philodemo, papyris, inscriptionibus1), <. . .> additamentum lacunae, quae coniectura nititur, supplendae gratia factum.
Haec igitur ut meliora reddant, aetate provectus iunioribus trado: inutilia non videbuntur. Iis autem, qui in voluminis huius paginis corrigendis amico animo; prompto labore me adiuverunt; Ludovico Deubner, Hadvigae de Kenner, Walthario Kraus, qui etiam locorum indices confecit, debitas pro meritis gratias ago. _________ 1) In Philodemo cancellos interdum omisi, ubi supplementum, velut unius litterae extra omnen dubitationem esse videbatur.
|
PREFACE In revising and improving, to the best of my ability, Leonard Spengel’s remarkable work entitled Synagoge technon, and bringing it into a form that is acceptable for today, I have been especially moved by the fact that more than one hundred years ago (1828), when Spengel’s edition appeared, not even Walz’s edition (1832-26) of the Greek rhetoricians (Rhetores Graeci) was available, which is today so much despised among interpreters of the discipline of rhetoric, not to mention any of the editions of so many rhetoricians, orators, and philosophers that followed later, (including) Philodemus, which Sudhaus restored, and the strenuous labours of (other) scholars devoted to exploring ancient rhetoric. My little work, however, is divided into three parts, in the second of which I have printed the same work as Spengel, expanded, emended, and annotated so far as I was able. I have added the first and third parts myself; in the first, which collects testimonia of the begin-nings of the history of the art, myth-ological and historical, I have also attempted to show with what great au-thority archaic ideas about both gods and humans endured through the ages. In the third part I have exhibited certain selected passages that are shown through unambiguous wording to be the discoveries of the Technographers, and added some things which can with adequate probability be traced back to some sophistic treatise and from which one can learn what their thinking was. For instance, just to mention Aristotle’s Rhetoric, not to speak of Anaximenes, Just as there is no doubt that it contains plenty of precepts that were not uttered first by that philosopher, likewise it is not the object of our work to search out everything. If someone wishes to do this, he may research with an ongoing commentary into the words of the author. Therefore, I have thought it sufficient to include some things from Aristotle which, although they are present in his Rhetoric, nevertheless appear to be foreign to the spirit of that author but could with some legitimacy be attributed to other writers. All in all, however, I made a point of adding citations from Aristotle as well as Anaximenes in the footnotes if some of their claims seemed to agree with the known doctrine of their predecessors. Yet, let no one interested in such matters omit to approach, read, and examine those authors themselves! ** Again and again I reflected on my plans for this work regarding what to include and what to exclude. The foremost doubt concerned whether to include such fragments as what is left of Polycrates’s invective against Socrates, which H. Sauppe, a man of exceptional learning and judgment, thought was genuine. If we did include it, however, we could not then reject Lysias’s booklet against Polycrates; and we can still read Xenophon’s Apology of Socrates. Thus, in this matter I have followed the lead of Cicero, who says (Or. 65): “The resemblance of the sophists to actual oratory seems to call for greater distinction; they all want to pursue the same ornaments that an orator uses in court. However, they are different since their object is not to stir the spirits but rather to soothe them and not so much to persuade but to delight, they do so both more openly and more often than we.” For I do not think that Polycrates wrote a pamphlet against Socrates just to delight and did not want to stir the spirits but that he stepped forward like a plaintiff in the middle of the fight between the parties, so that we have here a middle-of-the-way genre of writing, situated between speeches actually given and mere exercises in the art. With a German word we would perhaps call it “Streitschriften” (polemics) or “Flugschriften” (pamphlets). This genre I have mentioned whenever it seemed to be called for; if, however, somebody wants to gain a deeper knowledge of such fragments, I have pointed him toward other authors. Whoever peruses the collection of remains that I have put forward will do well to remember first and foremost that at the peak time of those who are called sophists, the subject matter and doctrine of the single disciplines was not yet separated and delimited in such a way that each scholar could live safely within its boundaries. Add in that at the time when the first foundations of the sciences were laid, the compass of those things that one could investigate and know was not yet that wide. Thus, it is little wonder that everyone back then claimed to be able to speak about every and any subject matter. It is not abhorrent to reason, either, that these people, while working on the study and practice of speech, also touched on grammar: philologists did not yet exist. And who is going to separate Prodicus’ distinctions of synonyms from the elegance of his style? Thus, if Aristotle testifies that the sophists did not leave much behind in the way of treatises On Style (Peri lexeos), he seems to mean that part of the art that pertains to the structure of periods, ornament, and joining, things through which the speech becomes fuller; he himself, in looking at this part, subordinates everything to one virtue, namely clarity. I for my part see all those who in our times have written books about Latin style begin with nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, pronouns, and prepositions, and then go on to deal with sentence formation, and only in the third place do they discuss the development of a speech. Consequently, we will achieve no little understanding of the sophists’ labors if we see that they dealt with the elements of speech. They also join ethical teachings to rhetoric: they thought that children had to be raised to become good citizens. Philosophy, on the other hand, was created by Plato, who separated it from the sophists’ empty appearances; Isocrates named his – mostly rhetorical – discipline ‘political philosophy’, which, if done today, would make philosophers laugh. As this is the case, however, it is obvious that from time to time one can hardly lay out with clear boundaries what to include in the list of fragments and what to exclude from it. I have judged rhetoric to be the principal subject; I ask for pardon if I have added a few passages that today will appear to have hardly anything to do with it. However, I did not want to pass off as certain what is clearly not. The same must be said about which authors to name. For example, the orator Leo of Byzantium, the adversary of Philip of Macedonia who ended his life by hanging himself, was in my view hardly called a sophist for being too talkative (Bux, RE 12.2008), but a treatise, no doubt on rhetoric, is attributed in the Suda to Leo of Alabanda (Jacoby FGrH 278). This same man was called an orator in the same town and is said to have written a book On Stases and has nothing to do with our subject. There was confusion among the works of the Leos, and there was besides the orator and the sophist a historian, too; this latter has nothing to do with our subject either. Isocrates’ supposed treatise seems today to be generally regarded as spurious; the fragments of it that are preserved are of diverse character: while many show the pure image, so to speak, of Isocrates’ doctrine, others are such that one can have doubts about their nature. It is probable, however, that the written treatise was not published by Isocrates but that the teachings put forward in his everyday lessons were diligently excerpted by his students and, based on their perceived value, divulged – not publicly as long as the master was alive, but certainly in secret; and afterwards they were brought to light. Quintilian castigates such license in the proem to his first book (7) as follows: “Two books on rhetoric were already circulating under my name, which I had neither published nor prepared for publication. For the boys to whom I gave one of the two talks over two days excerpted it; as for the other one, they – being good youths, but much too fond of me – picked it up over several days to the extent that they were able to write it down in notes and made it public with a reckless honor of publication.” What now? Could we not believe that what happened to Quintilian have transpired with the famous teacher Isocrates as well? And it is not surprising that cautious instructors did not like this kind of business. Their teachings were secret, as is testified by Diogenes Laertius (4.1-2) on Speusippus: “he was the first to publish the so called secrets of Isocrates”. I see no reason to think that these words are spoken rashly. This is why even Aristotle was able to mention some of Isocrates’ precepts in his collection of treatises. Later, people could refer to such a treatise, albeit published against his will, as being “by Isocrates” despite being fully aware that he had not written it himself. Hence there are varying judgments regarding its faithfulness.
To the fragments proper I have added passages from Isocrates’ speeches themselves, arranged as best I could, from which one can gather Isocrates’ views on the art of rhetoric. Ahead of these I have inserted indices showing that we possess only part of the treatise, and left out several passages that pertain only to terminology. The latter are available thanks to the labors of Pantatzis and Wersdörfer – even if in places he mixes, rather inappropriately, life precepts and rhetoric – and will be in their proper place in a new and full lexicon of Greek rhetorical technical terms should one appear in the future. The fragments of the anonymous work On Magnificence (Περὶ μεγαλοπρεπείας), which stem from a papyrus published by Englishmen, are in an appendix; my putting them there does not mean that I am not aware of the debate about its author’s lifetime. Some think he is Corax himself, others a follower of Theodectes. There is no doubt that there were connections between Theodectes and the anonymous author after what August Mayer has painstakingly expounded in the Prolegomena to the fragments of Theophrastus’ On Style (Περὶ λέξεως p. XLV-XLVI); however, the fact that two say the same thing does not in itself show which one is earlier. To my mind, the Doric color of the language, so simple and archaic, leaves no doubt in my mind that our anonymous author corresponds to another anonymous author, the one who wrote the δισσοὶ λόγοι. In my view he may well have been even older than Theodectes. My labours were helped in no small way by the appearance of Diels’ illustrious Vorsokratiker (Fragments of the Presocratics) and the no less famous collection of the fragments of the Greek historians by Felix Jacoby. Where these works touch on the same authors as mine, they will supplement my work in so far as I can leave to them almost everything outside of rhetoric and refer the reader to them. I shall not pass over the efforts by Sauppe, Blass, and others to collect and comment on the fragments of the Attic orators, which have relieved me here and there of the otherwise unavoidable burden of doing that work myself. Instead, I have thought it sufficient merely to mention these authors in places. There will perhaps be some who will criticize that I have not followed consistently enough the chronology of the sophists. I do not contradict this criticism, but I had to take some liberties, as such matters often cannot be reckoned accurately. In establishing the text of the fragments I have used the material provided by others and consulted the editions current today, mostly Teubner and Weidmann, but also some by others, such as Gernet’s Antiphon and Burnet’s Plato, in such a way, to be sure, as was appropriate for a man of such long acquaintance with Greek and Latin literature and of so great experience in his personal life. At times it has seemed useful to look at several editions of the same author. In my apparatus – when I had to add one – I noted in a simple manner the different readings of the manuscripts, as Buecheler did in his minor edition of Petronius. Thus, anyone who wants to know the originator of a given emendation will have to look at the editions themselves. I have also made a few changes of my own. Wherever I have mentioned the manuscripts, I refer to them with those letters that are generally used in the editions, but I have not added the names of the manuscripts because in and of themselves they say nothing to the non-expert. How authoritative each manuscript is will not be apparent from the names alone; to assess it one will have to study the editions of the different authors and their prefaces. In the notes added under the fragments I have mentioned a selection of passages published in our time that seem useful for shedding light on the meaning of the words and could show what the author is getting at. I am well aware that I have thus lengthened the matter. But then one can hardly say with any confidence which boundaries should be set to such an enterprise. Some, for instance, will hope to find in this book the certainties, speculations, and conjectures that have been put forward up to the present (e.g.) concerning the ongoing disputes of Isocrates with Plato, Aristotle, Alcidamas, and others, even though that is rather the work of the scholarship by which the progress of our literature has been treated over the years. In an anthology like this one it seems to me more useful to add similar passages from ancient authors, and whenever I have thought I could say something effective in explaining the words myself, I have done so. Among the rhetors I have mentioned Walz's or Spengel’s edition, except for most of the first volume, which was re-edited by Hammer; I have quoted Spengel, however, whose page numbers are indicated in Rabe on the inner margin, in Hermogenes as well, even though I have here and there preferred Rabe’s text. In B VII 30 I would not like to have written ἵνα μὴ πάντας λέγω as Rabe does instead of ἵνα μὴ λέγω πάντας, which is to be preferred because of the metrical clausula (_v_ _v). Bibliographical abbreviations: A. S. = Τεχνῶν Συναγωγή sive Artium Scriptores. Composuit L. Spengel. Stuttgartiae 1828. Barczat = W. Barczat, De figurarum disciplina atque auctoribus, Diss. Gott. 1904. Blass = Fr. Blass, Die attische Beredsamkeit, 2. Aufl., Leipzig 1898. Brandstätter = C. Brandstätter, De notionum πολιτικός et σοφιστής usu rhetorico, Stud. Lips. XV (1893). Fraustadt — G. Fraustadt, Encomiorum in litteris Graecis usque ad Romanam aetatem historia, Diss. Lipsiae 1909. Friedel = 0. Friedel, De philosophorum ac sophistarum, qui fuerunt ante Platonem, studiis Homericis. I. De sophistis, Diss. Regim. 1873. Friedländer = U. Friedländer, De Zoilo aliisque Homeri obtrectatoribus, Diss. Regim. 1895. Gomperz = H. Gomperz, Sophistik und Rhetorik, Leipzig 1912. H. additum significat Rhetorum Graecorum volumen primum ex recognitione Leonardi Spengel iteratum a Carolo Hammer, Lipsiae 1894. Hamberger = P. Hamberger, Die rednerische Disposition in der alten τέχνη ῥητορική, Rhet. Studien II., Paderborn 1914. Herm. = Hermes. Zeitschrift für kl. Philologie. Hiddemann = C. Hiddemann, De Antiphontis, Andocidis, Lysiae, Isocratis, Isaei oratorum iudicialium prooemiis, Diss. Monast. 1913. Hofrichter = W. Hofrichter, Studien zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Deklamation, Diss. Breslau 1935. Jaeneke = Gualtherus Jaeneke, De statuum doctrina ab Hermogene tradita, Diss. Lipsiae 1904. Jensen = Chr. Jensen, Herakleides vom Pontos bei Philodem und Horaz, S. B. d. preuß. Ak. d. Wiss. phil.-hist. Kl. 1936, XXIII. Kowalski = G. Kowalski, De arte rhetorica I., Lemberg 1937. Lehnert = G. Lehnert, De scholiis ad Homerum rhetoricis. Diss. Lipsiae 1896. Marx = F. Marx. Aristoteles’ Rhetorik, Ber. d. k. sächs. Ges. d. Wiss. phil.-hist. Kl. LII (Leipzig 1909), 241 sq. M. Rh. = Rheinisches Museum. Mueller = Ad. Mueller, De Antisthenis Cynici vita et scriptis, Diss. Marpurgi Chatt. 1860. Navarre = Octave Navarre, Essai sur la rhetorique grecque avant Aristote, Paris 1900. Nestle = W. Nestle, Vom Mythos zum Logos, Stuttgart 1940. Peters = CI. Peters, De rationibus inter artem rhetoricam quarti et primi saeculi intercedentibus, Diss. Kilon. 1907. Pflugmacher = E. Pflugmacher, Locorum communium specimen, Diss. Gryph. 1909. Plöbst = W. Plöbst, Die Auxesis (Amplificatio), Diss. München 1911. Pohlenz == M. Pohlenz, Die Anfänge der griechischen Poetik (Nachr. d. k. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Göttingen, phil.-hist. Kl. 1920). P. S.-R. = Prolegomenon Sylloge, ed. H. Rabe, Lipsiae 1935 Scheel = Ae. Scheel, De Gorgianae disciplinae vestigiis, Diss.Rostoch. 1890. Schwartz = E. Schwartz, Commentatio de Thrasymacho Chalcedonio, Index scholarum Rostoch. 1892. Sheehan (Sh.) = M. Sheehan, De fide artis rhetoricae Isocrati tributae, Diss. Bonnae 1901. Solmsen = Fr. Solmsen, Die Entwicklung der aristotelischen Logik und Rhetorik, Berlin 1929. Spengel, v. A. S. Süss = W. Süss, Ethos, Leipzig 1910. W = Walzii Rhetorum Graecorum editio. (1832-36) Wendland = P. Wendland, Anaximenes von Lampsakos, Berlin 1905. Wersdörfer = H. Wersdörfer, Die φιλοσοφία des Isokrates im Spiegel ihrer Terminologie, Leipzig 1940.
Other references are self-evident or are written out.
{…}= to delete […] = an empty space has been filled by editors (in Philodemus,1 papyri, and inscriptions) <…> = an addition aimed at filling a lacuna assumed by scholars.
Now that I am in my old age, I leave the task of improving the present work to younger scholars. To all those, however, who have helped me correct the drafts of this volume in a friendly, diligent way – Ludwig Deubner, Hedwig Kenner, and Walter Kraus, who has also provided the indexes of passages – I offer my deserved thanks. _________ [1] In Philodemus I have sometimes omitted to enclose in square brackets a supplement that seemed to be beyond all doubt, like one of a single letter.
|